A30249:430
Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the moral law and the covenants, from the…Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the morall law and the covenants, from the…
Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the moral law and the covenants, from the errors of Papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians in XXX lectures, preached at Laurence-Jury, London / by Anthony Burgess ...Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the morall law and the covenants, from the errours of Papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians in XXX lectures, preached at Laurence-Jury, London / by Anthony Burgess ...
London: printed by James Young for Thomas Underhill, 1647
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
The place that seemeth to oppose this, is Exod. 34. 27, 28. I confess, if we look into the coherence of these Texts, we shall find some things difficult. But two things will help to clear it: first, that the things which Moses did write, were not the ten Commandments, but the several precepts, that were by way of explication; and then the second thing is, that whereas the 28. verse seemeth to speak of the same subject, Moses; yet the two former predicates are to be attributed to him. viz. his staying with God forty days and nights, and his neither eating nor drinking all that while: Then the third predicate is to be given to God, viz. writing upon the ten Commandments; for it's ordinary with the Hebrews, to refer the relative to some remote subject, and not the nearest; and this may untie that knot. There is this remarkable, that though the former Tables were ⟨p. 162⟩broken, yet now God enters into a Covenant of grace with them, as appeareth by proclaiming himself long-suffering, and gracious; but yet God causeth the ten Commandments to be written again for them, implying, that these may very well stand with a Covenant of grace, which opposeth the Antinomian.
The place that seemeth to oppose this, is Exod. 34. 27, 28. I confesse, if we look into the coherence of these Texts, we shall finde some things difficult. But two things will help to clear it: first, that the things which Moses did write, were not the ten Commandments, but the severall precepts, that were by way of explication; and then the second thing is, that whereas the 28. verse seemeth to speak of the same subject, Moses; yet the two former predicates are to be attributed to him. viz. his staying with God fourty dayes and nights, and his neither eating nor drinking all that while: Then the third predicate is to be given to God, viz. writing upon the ten Commandments; for it's ordinary with the Hebrews, to refer the relative to some remote subject, and not the neerest; and this may untie that knot. There is this remarkable, that though the former Tables were ⟨p. 162⟩broken, yet now God enters into a Covenant of grace with them, as appeareth by proclaiming himself long-suffering, and gracious; but yet God causeth the ten Commandments to be written again for them, implying, that these may very well stand with a Covenant of grace, which opposeth the Antinomian.